The task of restoring rivers and floodplains poses multi-dimensional challenges to policy-makers and project managers alike. Reconfiguring a river and its adjacent floodplain can generate numerous benefits to nature and society, ranging from richer biodiversity, more appealing landscapes and additional recreational opportunities to improved flood prevention. Equally, however, river restoration impinges on a wide variety of interests and institutional arrangements relating to agricultural production, water protection, nature conservation, flood defence, navigation, recreation, urban and rural development and the protection of historical landscapes. A successful restoration scheme needs to enrol stakeholders and institutions not only from such diverse sectors, but also from different scales of action and jurisdiction. The active support of local residents and authorities is generally essential, the political backing and (co-)funding by regional, national and even supranational agencies invariably critical to success. Decision making for river restoration is therefore not just about reaching agreement on a particular plan or design. It is better understood as a continuous process of guiding a scheme in its metamorphosis from the earliest ideas via planning and funding to implementation and ex-post evaluation. This process is generally not linear, but rather highly unpredictable, typically marked by set-backs and delays, sudden breakthroughs, renegotiations over measures etc. This is inevitable, given the diversity of interests involved and the conflicts invariably emerging around the reconfiguration of a river and its adjacent land.
In my paper I will explore the nature of decision-making processes relating to river and floodplain restoration with a view to identifying the principal challenges and drawing lessons from recent experiences. On the basis of in-depth empirical research conducted in England, France and Germany I will compare and contrast two generations of restoration schemes: the simpler and smaller-scaled schemes of the early to mid-1990s and the more complex, large-scale projects of today. From these cases I draw observations on the challenges posed by demands and desires for greater cross-sectoral integration and multi-level governance in restoration schemes today. Without challenging the need for a more integrated approach to restoration, I draw attention to the growing complexity of project management and the negative impact it is having on implementation. In my conclusion I argue that coping with complexity is central to implementing successful restoration schemes today and that the key to this lies in improving communication and coordination between policy development and project management.